My first Police CHP recording wwith immature cop and his light beam in my face
I noticed 3 patrol cars in a MacDonald s parking lot and decided to film them under my first Amendment lo and behold i get a immature cop who happens to think its funny shining light in peoples...
By: Cheapcomputerrepair
Read the original here:
My first Police CHP recording wwith immature cop and his light beam in my face - Video
RTDNF 2015 First Amendment Awards
RTDNF 2015 First Amendment Awards.
By: RTDNA
Read more:
Supreme Court to Hear Confederate Flag License Plates Case
Justices will determine whether state specialty license plates are protected free speech under the First Amendment.
By: NewsBeat Social
Read more here:
Supreme Court to Hear Confederate Flag License Plates Case - Video
First amendment violation.
Eugene Oregon, g4s agents at the ltd bus station threatened me with the police after they saw me recording them.
By: chris tawasi
See the original post:
Is The Confederate Flag License Plate Free Speech?
Is The Confederate Flag License Plate Free Speech? Is a license plate featuring the Confederate flag offensive enough to be banned, or should it be protected under the First Amendment, which...
By: The Times of India
See the original post here:
US Border Patrol Tribal Police revoke First Amendment - No Filming from Public Highway, Starlight
U.S. Border Patrol Tribal Police revoke First Amendment - No Filming from Public Highway, Starlight Starbright, Criminal Trespass Citation, 9 November 2014, Santa Rosa, Arizona, Tohono O #39;odham...
By: Robert Trudell
See the rest here:
As Supreme Court justices wrestle with a free speech case over specialty-license plates, another high-profile First Amendment dispute may soon reach the court.
On Friday, the justices are scheduled to discuss in private whether to review a ruling against a group of white public high school students from California who sued their school for ordering them to remove their American flag shirts on a day when many other classmates were celebrating their Mexican heritage.
Lawyers for the students are asking the Supreme Court to reverse a ruling last year by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the school didnt infringe on anyones constitutional rights.
As Law Blog recounted earlier, the suit was brought by three white students who attended Live Oak High School in northern California. On Cinco de Mayo in 2010, they showed up in t-shirts adorned in stars and stripes, outraging Mexican students who perceived the attire as a racist attack, court documents say.
Alerted to a potential fight brewing, an assistant principal asked the students to turn their shirts inside out or take them off. Several students refused to comply with the order and two of them had to go home for the day with excused absences. The next day, according to the Ninth Circuits opinion, those two students received numerous threats from other students and missed school another day out of fear for their safety.
School officials anticipated violence or substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and their response was tailored to the circumstances, Ninth Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote in last years opinion, which noted that Live Oak had a history of violence among students, some gang-related and some drawn along racial lines.
The students are represented by the American Freedom Law Center, a conservative public interest law firm co-founded by lawyer Robert J. Muise.
[T]here is never a legitimate basis for banning the display of an American flag on an American public school campus, wrote Mr. Muise in a December petition to the high court. And by incentivizing and rewarding violence as a legitimate response to unpopular speech, the Ninth Circuits decision is contrary to our foundational First Amendment principles and provides a dangerous lesson in civics to our public school students.
Attorneys for the school and its district argue that whats at stake isnt the First Amendment but the ability of school officials to protect their students and curb disruptions. In an opposition brief, they invoked some of Americas bloodiest episodes of school violence:
School officials on the scene had ample reason to believe violence and disruption were about to happen. School officials across the Nation act against a backdrop of the need to prevent another Santee, Columbine, Littleton, or any of the hundreds of school shootings that have happened since Tinker was decided. This is a case about school actions to protect students, which had the incidental effect of regulating the dress of two students on one afternoon. Not the expression of any particular opinion, nor regulation of any expression at any other time.
More:
Students Ordered to Remove Flag Shirts Ask High Court to Hear Their Case
Madison #39;s Music
What if most of what we think we know about reading the text of the First Amendment is just wrong? For years, the Supreme Court has treated the First Amendment like a laundry list of isolated...
By: Tom McIntyre
Go here to read the rest:
HCSO First Amendment Audit (pivothead video gasses unedited)
pivothead http://www.pivothead.com/#stay-in-it-alt March 10th 2015, shortly after taking this photo from a public sidewalk, Undercover Hillsborough County Sheriff #39;s Detectives conducted...
By: HONORYOUROATH
The rest is here:
HCSO First Amendment Audit (pivothead video gasses unedited) - Video
GWEN IFILL: It was a busy day at the Supreme Court. The justices decided not to take up a voter I.D. case out of Wisconsin, and they heard arguments over the right to issue license plates in Texas that feature a Confederate Flag.
NewsHour contributor Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal was there again and joins me now.
Lets start by talking about this Wisconsin case. In 2011, it was a big deal, this idea that voters had to present photo I.D.s at the polls. And this was considered by Democrats to be voter suppression and by Republicans a chance to beat back voter fraud.
So now this gets to the Supreme Court, and they decided to end it?
MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal: Not really.
They decided not to hear the Wisconsin case, so that leaves in place the lower court decision upholding Wisconsins law. But the court said nothing about the merits of the challenge to Wisconsins law. And, Gwen, right now, there are a number of other cases pending and moving up the pipeline that challenge other states voter I.D. laws, and, in particular, Texas and North Carolina.
Texas, there was a full-blown trial and the judge in that case found intentional racial discrimination by the state of Texas, unlike in Wisconsin. That case is now on appeal in the Fifth Circuit, and it is expected whoever loses will take it to the Supreme Court. So as of today, we really dont know how the justices think about some of these laws.
GWEN IFILL: But we know that, originally, this was put on hold not because of the merits of the case, but because it was too close to an election.
MARCIA COYLE: Exactly. Theres a court doctrine. The court doesnt like to see changes to election law shortly before elections.
The Wisconsin law was going to go in effect right before midterm elections. Now, today, the ACLU and other groups that have challenged Wisconsins law immediately went to the lower court to ask again that it be put on hold temporarily, because there is an April 6, I believe, election. And, again, they havent had time to implement the changes.
Here is the original post:
How the First Amendment affects your specialty license plate
The case marks the first time the justices will consider the First Amendment implications of the program, similar to other programs across the county, and whether the speech depicted on the plates is government speech or the speech of the driver.
In Texas, individuals can choose to have standard issue plates, or pay a fee and design a plate that is subject to the approval of the state. It can be rejected if state officials find it offensive.
READ: Supreme Court takes on specialty license plates
In court, Texas Solicitor General Scott A. Keller stressed the messages on the licenses plates constitute government speech. He said the state "etches its name onto each license plate" and that the law gives Texas the "sole control and final approval authority over everything that appears on a license plate."
Mary-Rose Papandrea, a constitutional law professor at Boston College Law School, said that "in general the free speech clause of the First Amendment does not apply when the government is speaking."
"The only check on what the government can say is the political process, " she said.
But Keller ran into skeptical questions.
Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, expressed doubt that the license plate program constitutes government speech. He said there is no coherent government message but instead it seems like they are "only doing this to get the money."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed to one plate that says "Mighty fine Burgers".
"Is it government speech to say 'Mighty fine Burgers' to advertise a product?" she asked.
Original post:
Analysis
From the moment that a state lawyer stood up in the Supreme Court to arguethat messages on license plates are governmentspeech, it seemed that the Justices went forward for the rest of the hour assuming that itwas not at least not always. A strange hearing thus unfolded on when the First Amendment puts curbs on government regulation of expression, and how tight those curbs can be.
The Court previously had made it absolutely clear that, if it is the government that speaks out on any issue, the First Amendment does not apply at all: it can say what it likes, and it can refuse to say what it opposes or even simply what it finds a bit unpleasant. In other words, as speaker, it can act as total censor.
That is the simple approach that Texas was seeking to have the Court embrace in Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, a case that gives the Court its first chance in nearly four decades to address the nature of license plate messages, beyond simply numbers and state names.
The states solicitor general, Scott A. Keller, opened by arguing that, becausethe state exercises total control over the making and display of auto and truck license plates, it has absolute authority to refuse toplace its imprimatur on any message that a tourist might want to put on a vanity, or specialty, plate.
But he had hardly finished his opening sentences when members of the Court began acting as if the First Amendment did apply to that system. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the state used a nebulous standard for disapproving plate designs which, of course, would be beside the point if the state had absolute freedom to choose; it would not need any standard at all, and could act on whimsy.
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., quickly offered a hypothetical about government billboards that contained the states message, but left room at the bottom for people to put up a message of their choice. He was, of course, hinting at a hybrid display: some government, some private. Keller responded that, if the government had final approval authority, it still would be government speech.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that, almost anything that the governmentdoes, it has final authority over, but that would not be true if the government had not createdthe words in other words, if some of the speech was privately initiated. She, too, was talking about a hybrid situation and that, again,would seem to bring the First Amendment at least partly into play.
When Justice Elena Kagan took a turn at suggesting a hypothetical, with a state allowing a license plate that said Vote Republican but turned down one that would say Vote Democratic, the states lawyer said that might run into other constitutional provisions but not the First Amendment.
It was perhaps inevitable that, sooner or later, someone would start pondering whether a license plate program was, in fact, a kind of public forum one, to be sure, that would have to conform to the First Amendment. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was the first to do so, wondering if a specialty license plate program did amount to a new kind of public forum. Again, though, that begged the question whether it was, as Texas insisted, a program of government speech.
Read the original:
Pocket Voice Recording - CBP First Amendment Test, Lukeville, Arizona, USA Port of Entry
Pocket Voice Recording - CBP First Amendment Test, Lukeville, Arizona, USA Port of Entry from Sonoyta, Mexico, 14 March 2015 0:00:01.900,0:00:02.400 [Ready for Officer] 0:00:02.400,0:00:03.900...
By: Robert Trudell
Read the original:
Pocket Voice Recording - CBP First Amendment Test, Lukeville, Arizona, USA Port of Entry - Video
Oklahoma fraternity #39;s racist song: Opinion Show for March 18, 2015
Elizabeth Sullivan leads the discussion as to whether the Oklahoma fraternity #39;s racist song video that was made public recently and the punishment violates the First Amendment right to...
By: cleveland.com
Go here to read the rest:
Oklahoma fraternity's racist song: Opinion Show for March 18, 2015 - Video
R. James George Jr. Courtesy George Brothers Kincaid & Horton LLP hide caption
Supreme Court advocates do not always play to type. To wit, R. James George Jr., arguing Monday for specialty license plates featuring the Confederate flag.
Not what you might expect from a man who started his legal career as a law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.
When asked if he would have a license plate on his car honoring the Confederacy, George replies, "I would not generally do that."
But George adds that he got involved in this case and many others because he is a staunch defender of the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
"I've been dealing with First Amendment issues most of my career," he says. "And I believe these people are entitled to have their say just like other people are entitled to have their say."
George has represented an array of clients in speech-related cases, from large media companies to prominent television personalities. And more than a few of those cases were "ripped from the headlines."
George defended rapper Tupac Shakur in a suit during the 1990s alleging that the rapper's lyrics on his album 2Pacalypse were so provocative that they caused the shooting of a Texas state trooper.
He also defended television host Phil Donahue in an invasion-of-privacy suit involving a show about incest. George was successful in persuading a Texas court that "a person's right to make public the most private details of their own life," even when that information reveals painful intimacies of other persons, is protected by the First Amendment.
Here is the original post:
Perry Sook 2015 RTDNF honoree for First Amendment Service Award
Nexstar Broadcasting Group President CEO Perry Sook on being honored with the 2015 RTDNF First Amendment Service Award.
By: RTDNA
See the rest here:
Perry Sook 2015 RTDNF honoree for First Amendment Service Award - Video
First Amendment or Community Standards Violation?
"ART" has SACRAMENTO IN NATIONAL NEWS AGAIN! A neighbor reported: I saw the swastika flags back up on the house yesterday but instead of 2 now there are 4 of them." CRIMEWATCH WILL ...
By: Dave Jenest
Go here to see the original:
In the autumn of 1798, Congressman Matthew Lyon of Vermont was fined $1,000 and sentenced to four months in prison. He was the first person convicted under the new Sedition Act, recently signed into law by President John Adams. It was now a crime to write, print, utter or publish false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States. As a reckless critic of Adams and the New England political elite, Lyon made an irresistible target.
The verdict shocked many Americans. Only a few years earlier, the states had ratified the Bill of Rights, which announced in its first sentence that Congress could make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Now, it seemed, Congress had done exactly what the First Amendment forbade. And if a sitting representative could be imprisoned for criticizing the government, what chance did ordinary citizens have to exercise their democratic rights?
In Libertys First Crisis: Adams, Jefferson, and the Misfits Who Saved Free Speech, Charles Slack artfully tells the story of the rise and eventual fall of the Sedition Act. He traces its origins to the fierce presidential election of 1796 in which Adams narrowly defeated Thomas Jefferson. After the election, Jeffersons allies hurled unprecedented abuse at the new president. Adams and his supporters in Congress wished to protect themselves and, in their view, the legitimacy of the young republic from the attacks pouring out in newspapers, pamphlets, orations and private conversations.
Slacks delightful narrative focuses not on Adams and Jefferson but on the vast and eccentric group of printers, orators, politicians, amateur philosophers and visionaries who fought against the Sedition Act. We are introduced to men and women such as Philadelphia printer Benjamin Franklin Bache (grandson of Benjamin Franklin) and his wife, Margaret Markoe, who were two of the most articulate critics of the Adams administration, and to Luther Baldwin, a somewhat less articulate ferryman from New Jersey who, after a day of drinking in a pub, voiced the opinion that the president of the United States should be kicked in his backside. His subsequent arrest made him a hero.
In this period, before the Supreme Court claimed the power of voiding unconstitutional laws, the job of defeating the Sedition Act fell to these misfits, who did much to ensure that Adams became the first one-term president and that the act was allowed to expire soon after his electoral defeat. On the last day of Adams presidency, Matthew Lyon, who had returned from prison to serve again in Congress, sent him a blistering farewell letter. The Bill of Rights was never, Lyon wrote of the Sedition Act, more shamefully, more barefacedly trampled on. Slack shows us how citizens such as Lyon gave the First Amendment its defining role in American politics.
Matthew Simpson is chairman of the Philosophy Department at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa.
Read more:
John and Diane Foley, RTDNF First Amendment
The parents of James Foley interviewed at the RDTNF First Amendment Dinner.
By: RTDNA
Continue reading here:
Tanya Simon at the RTDNA First Amendment Awards
By: RTDNA
See original here: